Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

KING'S SPEECH.

IRISH FREE STATE.

HIS MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. W. Dudley Ward) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address as followeth:—

"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament.

"I rejoice to be assured that you are prepared to confirm the Articles of Agreement signed by My Ministers and the Irish Delegation; and I pray that this Agreement may speedily accomplish the complete reconciliation of the peoples of Great Britain and Ireland."

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

CZECHO-SLOVAKIA.

Mr. KILEY: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Czecho-Slovak Government have recently completed a commercial treaty which gives certain preferences to goods of French manufacture imported into their country; whether they have made proposals to the British Government for a similar treaty, but owing to objection raised by his Department to the effect that any such treaty might interfere with the working of the Safeguarding of Industries Act the suggested treaty has not been concluded; and, if this is so, whether
he is prepared to receive the views of traders as to the injurious effects which such a refusal may have on the export of British manufactured goods to Czecho-Slovakia?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): The Commercial Convention of 4th November, 1920, gives no preferential treatment to French goods in the matter of customs duties in Czecho-Slovakia, but it includes provisions for the grant of licences for the importation into Czecho-Slovakia of certain classes of French goods and for the exportation of certain goods from Czecho-Slovakia into France. Negotiations with Czecho-Slovakia are in progress, and my right hon. Friend will be happy to consider any information bearing on the matter which may be placed before him.

COMMITTEE WORK (SIR W. ASHLEY).

Mr. C. WHITE: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that Sir William Ashley, who is now presiding over the Committee appointed to consider an application from certain manufacturers for the imposition of a duty of 33⅓ per cent. on certain imported glassware, has been identified with a movement for securing the imposition of a tariff on imports into this country and was associated with the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain in the Tariff Reform movement; and will he see that in future no person shall be appointed to such office who has taken a prominent part in advocating either Free Trade or Tariff Reform, so as to establish confidence in the tribunal?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I entirely dissent from the view that any person who took the side indicated by the hon. Member in the fiscal controversy before the War, or anybody who took the opposite side, is not to be trusted to conduct impartially the investigations required under the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and, as the question has been raised, my right hon. Friend desires me to take this opportunity of publicly thanking and expressing his confidence in all those who in response to his request are placing their knowledge and experience at the disposal of the Government.

Mr. C. WHITE: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, although the Safeguarding of Industries Act only
empowers him to appoint as members of particular Committees under Part II of the same, such gentlemen as may be already appointed as members of the permanent panel which the Act authorises him to nominate, Committees have, notwithstanding, been appointed by him in connection with the glassware and fabric glove inquiries, which contained members whose names had not appeared in the list of panel members already published by the Board of Trade; whether, after those particular Committees had been advertised and had even begun their sittings, some days elapsed before the appointment of certain of their members to the panel in question was publicly notified; how many of the gentlemen appointed to the permanent panel are nominees either of the Federation of British Industries or of the National Union of Manufacturers; and upon what principles he proceeds in determining the personnel of individual Committees of Inquiry selected from the panel?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: All the members of the Committees referred to had been appointed to the panel before their selection to serve on the Committees. No member of the panel has been or will be appointed as the nominee or representative of any particular interest. The constitution of a Committee is determined solely with the object of securing an impartial and competent body to report upon the facts of the case referred to them.

DUTIABLE INGREDIENTS.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: 7 and 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, in the case of disputes arising under Clause 1 (4) of the Safeguarding of Industries Act as to whether dutiable ingredients have or have not lost their identity in compound articles, his Department is taking the view that the Clause is not explicit as to the referee appointed by the Lord Chancellor being the proper authority to whom such disputes should be referred; and whether he is prepared to explain to the House the grounds on which the attitude is being adopted by his Department, seeing that traders whose interests are concerned with the interpretation of the Clause can at present get no satisfaction from the Department as to the course of procedure they should adopt to secure immediate arbitration;
(2) whether he received on the 6th November a letter sent the previous day by the fancy goods and china and glassware joint vigilance committee of the London Chamber of Commerce, complaining as to the term lamp-blown ware in the key industries schedule being applied to various kinds of cheap fancy goods; whether the Department still maintain that it is not in a position to answer the letter, but has its contents under consideration; whether he is prepared to admit that the application of the term lamp-blown ware to such goods as dolls' eyes, Christmas tree ornaments, artificial grapes used for millinery, etc., involves lifting it entirely out of its context in the key industries schedule, seeing that it appears there entirely surrounded by commodities of a scientific character; whether the objection made by the vigilance committee to him derives strong support from the promises made by Ministers in Parliament in regard to lamp-blown ware when the House adopted the Ways and Means Resolutions last May; and whether, seeing that His Majesty's Customs are admittedly holding up these fancy goods for duty under the advice of the industries and manufactures department of the Board of Trade, to whom they refer complainants, the Board is prepared forthwith to lay the case, as desired by the vigilance committee, before the Lord Chancellor's referee?

Sir W. MITCHELL - THOMSON: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. No list of articles to be taken as comprised within the general heading of lamp-blown ware has been issued by the Board of Trade. Complaints of the nature of those to which the hon. Member refers accordingly appear to come under Section 11 of the Safeguarding of Industries Act and it is open to complainants to approach the Customs with a view to their complaints being referred to a referee to be appointed in accordance with that Section. The vigilance committee of the London Chamber of Commerce have been so informed by the Board. I am not aware of any complaint in this particular connection as to loss of identity, and the question as to the interpretation of Section 1 (4) of the Act does not arise.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand from that reply that
dolls' eyes were kept out because they were a key industry and not because there was a collapsed exchange?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, Sir. I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend should understand that.

LOCAL ANÆSTHETICS.

Dr. MURRAY: 39.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why it happened that three parcels of Beta Eucaine arrived from Germany on the s.s. "Oranje Nassau" on 4th November and that the importers of these parcels were not advised of their arrival until the 21st November; why, when they paid on 22nd November the duty demanded by His Majesty's Customs under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, they were still unable to obtain delivery of the parcels; whether he is aware that daily applications were made to the Customs parcels post department at Mount Pleasant, who were informed that the material contained in the parcels consisted of important local anæsthetics used in surgical operations and was urgently required by hospitals; why delivery was not obtained from His Majesty's Customs until the 8th December; and whether he proposes to take steps to obviate the continuance of such delays?

Mr. YOUNG: The parcels in question reached the Customs on the 15th November and the notice on arrival was sent to the addressees on the 18th. Duty was paid on the 22nd, but it is regretted that owing to the transfer of this parcel post work to more commodious premises which was then proceeding, a delay occurred which was unavoidable in the circumstances. This cause of delay will not recur, and the transfer will benefit importers by reason of the possibility of accelerating delivery which it will afford.

Mr. KILEY: Has not the hon. Gentleman repeatedly denied that there has been any delay in the clearance of parcels due to the collection of duties under the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

Mr. YOUNG: No, far from it. I have always regretted the delay which has been created by the congestion of parcels, and I have always referred to this measure of the transfer to more commodious premises as one which will in future obviate delay.

Dr. D. MURRAY: Will the hon. Gentleman see that this matter receives special attention, because when local anæsthetics are held up in this way general anæsthetics, which involve much more danger, will have to be used, and it will add to the terrors of the dentist's chair.

Mr. YOUNG: The importance of a step of this sort is no doubt fully recognised.

CHEMICALS.

Dr. MURRAY: 40.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, owing to the absence of technical knowledge of chemicals on the part of the Customs officials ordinarily concerned with the examination of goods arriving at the various ports throughout the country, it has become the practice of His Majesty's Customs to detain all parcels of chemicals and to refuse delivery to importers on the ground that inquiries are being made; that the consequent delay, even in the case of goods not dutiable, frequently amounts to weeks; and that it has become the practice of His Majesty's Customs to ignore any interim complaints which may be made by traders as to the great inconvenience that they are put to by the consequent hold-up of business; and whether he can devise some means whereby a decision may be given on the spot in any cases of this kind which involve only an ordinary working technical knowledge of the commodities in question?

Mr. YOUNG: In the case of chemicals entered as not liable to duty, as to which the examining Customs Officer is in doubt whether duty is not chargeable under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, it is necessary to submit a sample for expert opinion by the Government chemist, and this opinion is obtained with the least possible delay. But if the importer wishes to obtain immediate possession of the goods, it is always open to him to do so on deposit of an amount sufficient to cover the duty in the event of the goods being ultimately held to be liable. As decisions are given on various substances, the officers at the ports will become more experienced in deciding liability without the necessity of submitting samples, and the inconvenience complained of will diminish. I am not, however, prepared to incur the expense attendant on the appointment of expert advisers at the various ports.

Dr. MURRAY: Is it not a fact that if this kind of thing goes on there will be no drug in the market after this?

Mr. G. TERRELL: Is it not a fact that these complaints are being greatly exaggerated, and that the Act is being administered remarkably well?

Mr. YOUNG: It is fully recognised that the period of the initiation of an Act necessarily causes inconveniences. Those inconveniences are being overcome.

Dr. MURRAY: Does not "remarkably well" mean that the goods are being kept from getting into this country?

DEPOSIT SYSTEM.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: 43.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the sum of £14,056 collected under the Safeguarding of Industries Act represents deposits which traders have had to pay in order to secure their goods pending a settlement of dispute as to the precise amount of duty leviable; whether the deposit system has been encouraged by His Majesty's Customs officials; whether the deposits paid have in many cases proved to be far in excess of the legitimate duty when obtained; whether a case has arisen in which a deposit of over £650 was demanded in respect of goods, of which it is alleged the duty should not properly exceed £10; whether he can inform the House with regard to the October figures; what is the approximate net amount, independent of the cost of collection, which the Exchequer is actually to secure; and can he state the total amount received from 1st October to 10th December?

Mr. YOUNG: The sum of £14,056, collected under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act up to the 28th October, represents actual receipts of duty and does not include the deposits to which the hon. Member refers. The deposit system is brought to the notice of importers in their own interests by the Customs in cases of doubtful liability in order that they may obtain immediate delivery of the goods if they so desire. Such deposits must naturally be sufficient to cover estimated full liability, but I am not aware of the actual case to which the hon. Member refers. The net amount of duty received in October cannot be stated, inasmuch as the cost of collection
of this duty is merged in the general cost of the Customs Service. The total amount of duty received from the 1st October to the 10th December is £44,000.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Would not the figures that the hon. Gentleman has show that the increased cost of the administration of the Customs since the passing of the Act has much more than swallowed up this alleged advantage of £44,000?

Mr. YOUNG: I should require notice for a more careful analysis of the figures before I could answer that question, but speaking on the spur of the moment I should say not.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: Does not the hon. Gentleman think this deposit system necessitates a great deal more capital for business than before?

Mr. YOUNG: I believe the use of the deposit system is largely also specially applicable to the transition period. When the inconveniences have been overcome, probably importers will find that it is necessary to make less use of it.

Mr. KILEY: When the importers are called upon to deposit 33⅓ per cent. of the value of the goods, how can they sell those goods without knowing what they have to pay?

MANUFACTURED GOODS (DUTIES).

Major BARNES: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many requests for orders imposing a duty on manufactured goods under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act have been received by him; if so, how many he has approved; and whether he will publish a list of these applications forthwith so as to give adequate opportunity to those who desire to oppose them to prepare evidence which they will submit to any committee of investigation that may be appointed?

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many and what applications have been made for import duties to be levied under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and when any opportunity will be given for other traders affected and the public generally to be heard in opposition to such applications?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Including formal complaints and inquiries
with a view to formulating complaints, roughly some 60 trades have communicated with the Board. Two complaints, relating to fabric gloves and glove material and to domestic, illuminating and mounting glassware, have been referred to Committees. In reply to the last part of the question I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to a question asked by him on the 24th October last, of which I am sending him a copy.

GLASSWARE.

Mr. BRIANT: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the British flint-glass manufacturers recently made an application for the imposition of a duty on certain types of imported glassware which are used to a considerable extent by British Silver and electro-plate manufacturers in Birmingham and Sheffield; whether his Department referred it to a committee of inquiry; whether, on the assembling of that committee to consider the application, the flint-glass manufacturers requested to be allowed to withdraw the application; and whether, in view of the fact that the announcement of the terms of reference of the committee in question involved the opponents of the application in considerable expense and inconvenience during the Christmas season in preparing evidence in support of their contentions, he will undertake that in future such applications shall not be entertained except on the understanding that they will, in fact, be proceeded with before any committee?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative, except that the application has not, according to my information, been withdrawn, but postponed for a period by arrangement between the British Flint Glass Manufacturers' Association and the Birmingham and Sheffield manufacturers referred to. It is, of course, open to the Committee to hear evidence on this portion of their reference from other manufacturers should they so desire. No circumstances have arisen which suggest the desirability of a rule of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. KILEY: What is the position of those who opposed this application?
They have brought their witnesses and gone to the trouble of an inquiry, and are told it is postponed. Is there any compensation to be given to them?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have just said it is of course open to the Committee if they desire to hear evidence on this portion of their reference from other manufacturers.

Mr. KILEY: As they did not do so, what redress have the opponents got after having gone to the expense of preparing their case, bringing witnesses from Sheffield and Birmingham to London, and then being told it is not proposed to hold the inquiry?

Sir W. MITCHELL - THOMSON: I have explained that by an arrangement between the manufacturers referred to and the trade, the inquiry has been postponed—not withdrawn.

Mr. KILEY: That was not made public. Counsel and witnesses were present to commence the proceedings.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Member must leave that to the discretion of the Committee.

DELIVERIES (LONDON DOCKS).

Major BARNES: 24.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that on the 9th December a consignment of over 100 bags of washing soda crystals arrived at the east quay of the London Docks and was detained by His Majesty's Customs as being liable for duty under Part, I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act; that the importers sent special lorries to remove the goods, but were refused delivery by the Customs officials unless payment of a deposit to cover the ad valorem duty was made; that, upon refusal to pay such deposit, the goods were detained so that workmen had to be dismissed; and that, it was not until the case was taken up by the British Chemical Trade Association that, the goods were eventually released on the 12th December as not being dutiable at all; and whether he will take steps to ensure that such interference with trade shall not occur again?

Mr. YOUNG: I am informed that these goods were not landed until the morning of Saturday the 10th instant, and that the two vans sent down on that day were allowed to take away full loads; the
question of liability to Key Industry Duty was raised, but, in any case, there was no possibility of obtaining further deliveries on that day, as the workmen had then ceased for the day. The question of liability had been settled and the remainder of the goods were released before noon on Monday the 12th. I think the hon. Member will agree that this can hardly be described as an interference with trade.

Mr. KILEY: If the matter had been settled, can the hon. Member say why there was delay?

Mr. YOUNG: If the hon. Member had followed my reply, he would have seen that there was no delay of any sort or kind.

Mr. KILEY: That is quite wrong.

Toys DUTIABLE.

Mr. BRIANT: 38.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to a consignment of toys recently imported into this country, which included some children's games called fishponds, which goods, on critical examination, were discovered by the Customs officials to contain small hooks attached to little pieces of rod of small value; whether the importer of these goods was asked to declare the value of the small pieces of wire in question on the ground that the wire was dutiable under the Safeguarding of Industries Act as being in the category of ignition magnetos and permanent magnetos; whether he is aware that these goods were only released, on depositing the sum of 2s., to the importer after considerable delay; and whether he is prepared to give instructions which will prevent such inconvenience and attendant expenses for rent and other charges being imposed in future upon importers of such trifles?

Mr. YOUNG: I understand that the facts are substantially as stated. The hooks in question were pronounced on expert advice to be permanent magnets and, therefore, dutiable under the Schedule to the Safeguarding of Industries Act. The matter referred to in the last paragraph of the question is receiving attention, and I hope shortly to be able to authorise the exemption from Key Industries Duty of certain articles of the kind in question, so long as the
exemption will not operate to defeat the substantial objects of the Act.

Major M. WOOD: Does not the hon. Member think that the collection of these small sums is not worth the great trouble and inconvenience that is inflicted on traders?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon. Member say how they have managed to get children's fishponds into key industries, and what possible use can that sort of article be in wartime in this country?

Mr. YOUNG: Any question about the interpretation of the Schedule must be addressed to the Board of Trade.

Mr. KILEY: Is the hon. Member aware that through the delay in the collection of this 2s. the goods have been either stolen or lost in the docks?

Major WOOD: May I have an answer to my question?

Mr. YOUNG: Possibly the hon. Member may deduce something from the latter portion of my answer—
I hope shortly to be able to authorise the exemption from Key Industries duty of certain articles of the kind in question, so long as the exemption will not operate to defeat the substantial objects of the Act.

Mr. CLYNES: Has the hon. Member observed how the figures for unemployment have gone up since this Act took effect?

TREATMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS (FLORIDA).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any report from America as to the case of persecution and expulsion of British coloured subjects from Miami, Florida, and the protection afforded or otherwise to British subjects there by the British Consul?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I returned to his question on 26th October. His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington was instructed to inquire into the matter, but his Report has not yet been received.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

INSURANCE (RAILWAY SERVANTS).

Major WILLIAM MURRAY: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour whether certain railway companies in England and Scotland have so far declined to apply for certificates of exception from the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts; whether, as a result, permanent railway servants of certain grades employed by such companies are, on discharge, disqualified from receiving benefit either from the Unemployment Insurance Fund, although they have contributed to it, or from the funds of the railway companies; and if he proposes to take any steps to remove the hardship complained of in the case of such men?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): Save in two cases, all the principal railway companies in Great Britain have given or confirmed the necessary declaration as to the permanent nature of the employment of the railway servants in question, and certificates of exception have been or are about to be issued. I am still hopeful that the two companies referred to may find it possible to come into line with the others, but as long as the question of exception is outstanding, that is, until it has been decided whether the employés are or are not insurable, it is clearly not possible to pay benefit. As soon as the question of exception is definitely settled the contributions paid will either be available for benefit or will be refunded in accordance with any certificate issued.

UNEMPLOYED (STATISTICS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed men and women respectively are on the registers; how many of these are not receiving any form of insurance allowance; what is his estimate of the numbers of unemployed not on the registers; and how many persons are now employed on the various forms of relief works?

Dr. MACNAMARA: On 9th December there were registered as wholly unemployed 1,412,372 men and 321,346 women. These figures compare with 1,549,307 men and 477,627 women registered as wholly unemployed at 24th June. As regards men and women registered as working short-time, the figures for 9th December
were 150,700 men and 104,600 women as against 565,000 men and 511,000 women on 27th May. Of those registered as wholly unemployed on 9th December, all, except about 32,300 men and 25,800 women were on benefit. These latter figures represent persons not in insured trades—agriculture and domestic service—and persons disqualified for one reason and another by the local employment committees or the referees or the umpire. Over and above these last named figures there is a further margin, largely, I should say, of agricultural labourers unemployed, but not registered with us. The number of persons reported as employed on the various forms of work specially provided to deal with unemployment was round about 107,000 on 9th December. These figures are certain materially to increase in the new year because of the preliminary steps which are being taken in a number of directions. As regards the last part of the question, I have prepared a detail of the progress already made in putting into operation the several plans recently approved by the House, and as the statement is necessarily lengthy, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the statement:—
The Unemployment Grants Committee has since the middle of September, on the old basis of grants up to 60 per cent. of the wages bill of unemployed men taken on, approved 600 further schemes involving work amounting to nearly £2,000,000 and expected to employ about 27,000 men. In the same period, on the new basis of assistance towards loan charges, the Committee has approved 660 proposals by local authorities involving £7,500,000 worth of work. At the same time, with the additional £2,000,000 set aside from the Road Fund for road works, considerable schemes of work have been mapped out in the home counties, and operations have now begun in one or two cases. Sixty-two land drainage schemes have been approved, estimated to cost in all about £118,250 and to employ about 3,000 men for average periods of 17 weeks. Over 1,000 men have now started work. As regards afforestation, 1,300 men are now employed on the Forestry Commission's own operations, and about 85 other small schemes of forestry have been appro ved. The figures which I have given for men
employed do not include any allowance for the effect of the export credits scheme in stimulating trade. Under the extended export credits scheme, credit to the amount of nearly £2,000,000 has been sanctioned since the end of October, and this is bound, of course, to re-act upon employment. As regards the scheme for the guarantee of the principal or interest on loans up to £25,000,000 for capital undertakings, after the passing of the Trade Facilities Act a Committee was set up to administer this scheme, with Sir Robert Kindersley as Chairman and Sir William Plender and Colonel Schuster as members. The Committee has considered generally the questions before it and indicated the kinds of application to which it will give preference. The schemes already submitted are numerous and varied, and others are coming in. As regards the £563,000 which was allotted for the acceleration of Government contracts, contracts under this arrangement have now been placed by the Post Office and by the Admiralty.

ROAD WORK (RATES OF PAY).

Mr. MILLS: (by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport if he is aware of the bitter feeling among unemployed men throughout the country as the result of the attempt to start road works at rates of pay fixed by the Ministry and which imply an attack upon existing wages. Whether he is aware that thousands of these unemployed men are already proficient at road making as the result of their army service, and is he aware that in the Dartford Division of Kent contractors' rates vary within a radius of four miles by as much as 2d. per hour, and that grave disturbance has already taken place and is likely to continue unless uniformity is produced and a minimum rate recognised?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): As I only received notice of this question a short time ago I have not been able to prepare a formal answer, but I think that I can give the information which my hon. Friend desires. I am not aware of any exceptional feeling upon the question raised by the hon. Member in reference to road making, most of which is being undertaken by contract. I am sorry that some of the unemployed should interpret the position of the Government as
to the payment of a remuneration at a standard rate for a probationary period as an attack upon existing wages. It certainly was not so intended. The hon. Member asks me as to unemployed men who are already proficient at road making. I have no information on that subject. He asks me finally a question which, I take it, relates to the Dartford and Erith road. The hon. Member himself made representations to the Ministry in reference to that road. Unfortunately 12 months ago the county council and the men were unable to agree as to terms, and the work was not proceeded with. In response to representations made by my hon. Friend we have now let the work out by contract, and the work is proceeding. I have not had my attention called to any difficulties being caused.

Mr. MILLS: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the minimum rate of wages in the Erith district is considerably above the rates proposed to be paid by the contractor, and can there not be some method of straightening out the tangle between the rates paid by this contractor and the proper rates?

Mr. NEAL: I am not aware of that. What I am aware of is that the work is now proceeding. The men made very strong representations that they hoped some way might be found by which the work could be undertaken, that the only way in which it could be done was by contract, and I have no reason to question that the proper rate of wages is being paid by the contractor.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I drew the attention of the Minister of Health to the fact that in Sheffield there were miners engaged by local contractors for road work who during the War received a special rate of pay from the Army for making roads, and at present they are subject to the low rate of pay as probationers at this work? Further, may I ask the Minister of Health if he did not promise to find special work for such cases, and will he not carry out that undertaking?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): Special instructions were given on that subject, that where men are competent to do the work for which they are engaged they will obtain standard pay. The question is a question of fact, and it will be for the borough engineer and the local authorities to say whether or not the men are fully qualified to do their work.

EX-SERVICE MEN (MINISTRY OF PENSIONS).

Viscount WOLMER: 13.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of women employed in the Ministry in preference to ex-service men and the number of permanent civil servants serving as deputy principal clerks or principal clerks; and how many of them are ex-service men, and how many of the remainder have received promotion since 4th August, 1921?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): It is not the policy of the Ministry to employ women in preference to ex-service men. On the contrary, I am at present adjusting my staff in accordance with the recommendation in paragraph 19 of the Third Report of the Lytton Committee, to which I would refer my Noble Friend. The answer to the second part of the question is 38, of whom three are ex-service officers. No promotions to either of these grades have been made since the dates mentioned.

Viscount WOLMER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many ex-service men he proposes to take into employment in the adjustment which he has fixed?

Mr. MACPHERSON: My proportion of ex-service men up to the present is 97.8 of all the men employed. I hope by the 31st March to have fully completed the recommendations of the Committee.

Captain LOSEBY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any estimate of the time within which he will get the total number of ex-service men employed up to the percentage recommended by this Committee?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I hope by the 31st March.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

CONSTABLE-MECHANICS.

Lieut. - Colonel ARCHER -SHEE: 15.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Royal Irish Constabulary mechanic-constables being dismissed at Gormanstown and other places are now receiving a month's notice before dismissal or equivalent compensation; and whether they are being given boat and railway warrants to their homes?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): Some of these men have left on termina-
tion of their contracts. Others whose original contracts are expiring are being retained at a month's notice, or a week's notice, according to circumstances. All temporary constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary receive, under the terms of their contract, a bounty of £25 at the expiration of a year's service and those who are being discharged on termination of contract are entitled to travelling expenses to their homes. In a few cases men receiving the bounty were discharged without prepayment of fares. These omissions are being rectified.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when these men were enlisted about a year ago they were told that they would be allowed to re-engage at the end of 12 months for another 12 months' service? Is he aware that that definite offer has been broken, as they were then told that they would be on monthly contracts, and even that has been reduced now to one week's notice? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that to turn these men out at a week's notice is treating them very badly, in view of the fact that if any railway company treated its employés like that there would be a general strike, and quite right too?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. and gallant Member has made several allegations, and I deny the accuracy of every one of them. I am doing my best to treat these gallant men as generously as I can within the law, and within the terms of their contract.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that until I asked him questions about these men they were being sent home without railway warrants?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: A few were sent off through an inadvertence, but that mistake has been corrected.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: There were 19 sent off in that way.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, and I am profoundly sorry the mistake occurred. I appreciate my hon. and gallant Friend's interest in the matter.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Does he deny that these men were definitely offered the chance of taking on again for another 12 months at the end of their 12
months' contract, that that was altered to a month, and then to a week's contract?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, I do deny it.

Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries and bring pressure to bear to see that these men are not handicapped in this way after having served their country?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have not heard that they have been handicapped in the way referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend. On the contrary, I have information to the very opposite effect.

SERVICE INSTITUTES.

Sir W. DAVISON: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes Board have at any time directed the Navy, Army, and Air Force canteens in Ireland to join the Sinn Fein boycott of British goods; whether this boycott is still in force; and, if not still in force, when it was terminated and under what circumstances?

Viscount WOLMER: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War, whether he has any further statement to make in regard to orders having been issued to Navy and Army and Air Force Institutes in Ireland that in future only Irish goods are to be sold and in particular with reference to an Order issued from the Irish Area Office, Lord Edward Street, Dublin, dated 31st May, 1921, and 3rd June, 1921, forbidding the future purchase of English-manufactured soaps, candles, biscuits, boot polish, and other commodities; and whether he will give an explanation of the matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): In amplification of the reply which I gave to the Noble Lord on this subject on Friday last, I should like to state that, as I understand, certain difficulties were at one time experienced by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes in London in obtaining English goods requisite for the maintenance of their Irish supply. This was due to the attempted boycott referred to by the hon. Member for Kensington, South, and the consequent unwillingness on the part of British manufacturers to take the risks involved in the carriage of their goods to Ireland. This action had the effect of temporarily
interfering with the supply of English goods to Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes in Ireland, and the circulars issued from the office of the Irish Area Manager, to which the Noble Lord refers, were local instructions issued with the intention of warning canteen managers that such temporary interference might take place, and that, in the circumstances, they must make up deficiencies in their stocks by supplying goods of Irish manufacture. There was never any intention of altering the policy in regard to the supply of English made goods or submitting to any boycott, and steps were taken to protect the transport and handling of the supplies from England and to ensure that the supply should be maintained for the future; these steps have proved successful and the normal supply has been resumed.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have in my hand a letter from the War Office admitting that these institutes did join the Sinn Fein boycott, and not as stated by him because the manufacturers were unwilling to risk sending goods to Ireland, but because as stated in this letter, in view of the Sinn Fein ban, the warehouses and shops of the institutes in Ireland would be destroyed unless military protection could be had, and such military protection had been refused?

Sir R. SANDERS: I am not aware of any letter that contained the statement suggested in the first part of my hon. Friend's question.

Sir W. DAVISON: I have the letter in my hand.

Viscount WOLMER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he denied the existence of this document in reply to my question last Friday?

Sir R. SANDERS: I received a letter from my Noble Friend this morning which, if he will allow me to say so, I think was unnecessarily, and I hope unintentionally, offensive, calling my attention to this letter which I had never seen before. The answer I gave on Friday was a perfectly accurate answer to the question on the Paper.

Viscount WOLMER: Is it not a fact that the hon. Gentleman denied that the orders had ever been given at all, and now I have called his attention to the
actual document, is it not unfortunate he does not withdraw and apologise?

Sir. W. DAVISON: Will the Secretary for War say why protection was not given to these institutes to enable them to retail British goods which they had in hand? Is he aware that this letter in my hand was sent by his Parliamentary Private Secretary, on his instructions, to me stating that, owing to the lack of military protection, these goods could not be kept in Ireland, and that unless such military protection was forthcoming no British goods were to be supplied?

Sir R. SANDERS: My right hon. Friend informs me that protection was given at the earliest possible moment, and that it has been completely successful.

FREE STATE FLAG.

Mr. ESMOND HARMSWORTH: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government of the Irish Free State will have the power of choice between flying the Sinn Fein flag and the Union Jack, the national flag of both Great Britain and the Dominions; and whether, if they have that power, this House will have any power over the decision that is come to?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have nothing to add to the answers already given to similar questions addressed to my right hon. Friend and to myself.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an answer to the last part of the question, whether this House has any power over a decision come to in the Irish Free State on the question of the flag?

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that persons in Ireland who desire to fly the Union Jack will not be persecuted, as at present?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The statement which was made by both the Prime Minister and myself the other day was that, in the case of each Dominion, the Dominion itself settled what the Dominion flag should be, and we proposed to follow that course in regard to the Irish case. For myself it seems to me that, in view of the acceptance of an agreement of friendship and amity, the spirit in which it works is of much more importance than the actual symbol.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: In view of the immense importance of what has been described as a symbol, can my right hon. Friend say whether this question was ever brought up at all during the negotiations, and why it does not find some part in the Agreement?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question was answered last week.

ARMY (STRENGTH).

Viscount WOLMER: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of recruits needed to bring the Army up to strength?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): On 1st December the strength of the Regular Army, including all ranks, but exclusive of the British Army in India, was about 10,000 less than the numbers voted.

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what amount the cost of the special Department of Scotland Yard, drawn either from the Secret Service or any other Vote, is to be reduced in the next financial year; and precisely what modifications in the work of the Department are to be made, particularly whether its political character is to be abandoned?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The arrangements for the re-organisation of the Department are not yet complete, and I am unable to say what precise modifications will be finally adopted or by what amount, if any, the cost will be reduced.

Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question, as to whether the political character of this Department is to be abandoned?

Mr. SHORTT: I answered that on Friday. It is not to be abandoned.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 21.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a recent case
before His Majesty's Courts in which evidence was given to the effect that the Duke of Northumberland, M.V.O., had been given access to documents in Scotland Yard and to other information collected by the secret police for the purpose of writing newspaper articles; whether this was done with his permission; for what object was such permission given; and whether other contributors to the public Press will be granted similar privileges?

Mr. SH0RTT: I gave no permission in this case, and have no knowledge of the matter beyond what appeared in the newspaper reports, but I do not gather from those reports that any information was given that should not have been given, or that any information was given to the Duke that was not available for other Press contributors.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Since I put the question on the Paper, has not the right hon. Gentleman looked into the matter a little more closely and made further inquiries? Does he think it is proper for any individual to be able to go to a nominal Government Department and see these secret documents?

Mr. SHORTT: There is no question of "nominal" in this matter; the Department is under the Home Office. There was no question of seeing documents. Information was given to the Duke which was available to any pressman.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman let it be known at the London Press Club, and in Fleet Street, that anyone can go to his Department and get any information they like?

Mr. SHORTT: They cannot get any information they like, but they know perfectly well, for they are doing it every day, that they can get such information as is proper to be given.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Is the information which this particular Department is prepared to give to individuals information only dealing with what this Department alleges to be the activities of trade union organisations and labour political organisers, or is any individual at liberty to go to this Department and get information as to any political organisation in the country?

Mr. SH0RTT: People can go there and ask for information, and if it is proper to be given they will get it. If it is not proper information to be given they will not get it. There is no question of dealing with the trade unions.

Dr. MURRAY: Has the Prime Minister changed his policy with regard to the special privileges of dukes?

EX-INSPECTOR SYME.

Mr. MILLS: 22.
asked the Home Secretary if ex-Inspector Syme has again been arrested and released after hunger striking in order to bring his case before the Government; and, in view of the repeated demands for an inquiry, will he grant an inquiry?

Mr. SHORTT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The facts of ex-Inspector Syme's case have been fully ascertained, and require no further investigation. There is no sufficient reason for re-opening the case.

Mr. MILLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, during his occupation of the office of Home Secretary, so far recognised the justice of this case as to offer this man re-instatement to one degree below the rank occupied by him at the time of the inquiry? Having regard to the fact that this man is determined, even at the cost of his life, to secure an inquiry, will the right hon. Gentleman not, even at this late stage, do something to meet his claim?

Mr. SHORTT: The hon. Member has not given a correct description of my right hon. Friend's action. What he did was to offer re-instatement to the man as an act of mercy, and not as a matter of re-opening the case. As far as the effect on this man's health is concerned, the sentence he is serving was the sentence of the Court, and if he chooses to starve himself I cannot help it.

POLICE PAY AND PENSIONS.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: 23.
asked the Home Secretary if he will refer to the Law Officers of the Crown the question of whether local police authorities have the
right and power to alter at their discretion the rates of pay and pension in force since the 1st April, 1919?

Mr. SHORTT: I do not think there is any occasion for me to refer to the Law Officers on this question. The scales of pay for sergeants and constables in all forces are now fixed by the Police Regulations, and cannot be altered without amendment of the Regulations. The scales of pay for the higher ranks in every force are, by the Regulations, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, and cannot be altered without the like approval. The rates of pension are governed by the Police Pensions Act of last Session, and cannot be altered without legislation.

Sir J. REMNANT: Have the local authorities, therefore, no power of their own discretion to alter these scales of pay and pension?

Mr. SH0RTT: The local authorities, as my answer states, have no discretion in this case. The question put down to-day is a very different one from that which was put down on Friday.

Sir J. REMNANT: Is not my present question exactly the same as the question I asked on Friday, when I asked for an answer yes or no, and got neither the one nor the other?

Mr. SH0RTT: No, Sir, nothing of the kind. The question put down on Friday was a totally different question altogether from this, and it was answered fully and completely.

Sir J. REMNANT: Is not the question which I have put on the Paper to-day exactly the same question to which, on Friday, I asked for an answer, yes or no?.

Mr. SHORTT: I understood, of course, that the supplementary question had to do with the question on the Paper.

Sir J. REMNANT: It was put plainly enough, at all events.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

GERMAN REPARATION.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any further statement regarding the request of the German Government for a delay in the payments of the
indemnity instalments; and whether His Majesty's Government will consult Parliament before consenting to the military occupation of further German territory or the imposition of other sanctions?

Captain W. BENN: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can give a pledge that the Government will not commit this country to a further occupation of German territory, or the imposition of new sanctions for the Treaty, without first consulting Parliament in the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): Conversations were begun this morning between representatives of the French and British Governments and will probably continue for the greater part of this week. I hope that, whilst my colleagues and I are taking part in these discussions, I shall not be pressed to make a statement on the subject.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I, in spite of the request of the right hon. Gentleman, respectfully ask if he can give us some assurance with regard to the second part of my question, as to whether any further military occupation will be undertaken before this House is consulted in accordance with what I believe to be the constitutional practice?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that hon. Members will respond to the appeal I have made. There is great difficulty in answering questions with regard to matters which are at this moment the subject of conversations between foreign Ministers who are in this country and ourselves, but the attitude of His Majesty's Government in this matter is fairly well known to the House.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am only trying to strengthen his hands?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for his intentions, but if he would occasionally take my hints as to the way in which he can best carry them out, I should be even more grateful.

GERMAN WAR CRIMINALS (TRIAL).

Sir W. DAVISON (for SIR J. BUTCHER): 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government are now in a position to announce the steps they intend to take for the trial of German war criminals in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I have been asked to reply. There is nothing to add to the answer given on the 10th November last to question put by my hon. and learned Friend.

Sir W. DAVISON: Are any steps being taken by the Government in this matter, or is the matter being allowed to lie fallow?

Sir G. HEWART: Steps are being taken, as I explained in the answer referred to.

Sir W. DAVISON: Have any steps been taken since the answer referred to was given?

Sir G. HEWART: Yes, the steps which were referred to in that answer.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the House to understand that the steps referred to in that, answer are at present being taken?

Sir G. HEWART: Yes, Sir; I think the House may understand that they are in course of being taken.

HOUSE OF LORDS (REFORM).

Captain BENN: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether a restoration in any form of the veto of the House of Lords has been considered by the Cabinet?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The proposals of the Government will be submitted to Parliament in due course. I must decline to make any statement as to proceedings in the Cabinet.

Captain BENN: Has it been suggested to the Cabinet, or are they considering, the restoration of the veto of the House of Lords?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must decline to make any statement as to the proceedings of the Cabinet.

Captain BENN: Then the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to pledge the Government not to restore the veto of the House of Lords?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I decline to answer any questions as to proceedings in the Cabinet, and I am astonished that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with his experience, should think it useful to put such questions.

GEORGIA.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in any negotiations with Russia as to trade or recognition, he will press that Government to allow free self-government to the Republic of Georgia, which has been already recognised by ourselves and other Powers as a self-governing independent State, but is at present occupied by Russian troops against the wishes of the inhabitants?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government have no definite information to the effect that Georgia is in occupation of Russian troops. The rest of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it impossible for the Government to get any definite information from Georgia as to whether or not it is occupied by Russian troops?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No doubt we could, but it would take time.

Sir J. D. REES: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to accept the assurances of any individual Member as to the wishes of the inhabitants of Georgia?

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: As a question of which I have given Private Notice is relevant to that which has just been asked by my hon. Friend, might I supplement his question? Does the Under-Secretary seriously say that he has no information that Russian troops are in occupation of Georgia and are carrying out very drastic acts of repression there, having sent innumerable people to gaol and having deported many others? If the hon. Gentleman has any doubt upon these facts, let me assure him that I was told no later than the day before yesterday by the President of the Constituent Assembly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]—I am giving my hon. Friend some useful information.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time for giving information.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I understood that the hon. Member was going to ask me a Private Notice question on this subject.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I will do so.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman really consider getting more prompt information on these matters, and does he not recognise that it is some-
thing of a scandal that the Foreign Office never has any information on these matters?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I deny the allegation of my hon. Friend.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has not the hon. Gentleman just said that he has no information that Russian troops are in occupation of Georgia?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I said that I had no definite information on this particular point.

Mr. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the independence of the Georgian Republic was recognised in 1919 and 1920 by nearly all the Powers of the world; whether this independence was further confirmed by the Treaty of 7th May, 1920, between Russia and the Georgian Republic; whether after an invasion by Russian and Kemalist forces in combination there has been substituted for the independence of Georgia government by Russia and a régime of the most drastic repression, including wholesale imprisonments and deportations, and the destruction of the liberty of the person, of the Press, and of public meetings; whether in every form of protest left to them the Georgian people have re-asserted their claim for their separate and independent existence; and what steps the Government are prepared to take to bring to an end this gross violation of all the principles for which the armies of the Entente fought and won the late War; and whether the hon. Member is aware that the President of the Georgian Constituent Assembly and other representatives of Georgia are in London at this moment to establish the facts which I have just set forth?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government accorded de facto recognition to the Republic of Georgia in January, 1920, and de jure recognition in January, 1921. During the same period similar recognition was granted by the Governments of the Allied and other Powers. The existence of the Treaty of Peace between Soviet Russia and Georgia would appear to confirm similar recognition on the part of the Soviet Government. In March, 1921, Bolshevik Armenian and Russian troops invaded Georgia, which accepted the Soviet form
of government. His Majesty's representatives were withdrawn, and the members of the former Georgian Government fled the country. His Majesty's Government have no later authoritative information as to ensuing events in Georgia. The only protests received by His Majesty's Government have been protests signed by private individuals abroad and members of the former Government. The information available from all sources indicates that all the Members of the present Soviet Government of Georgia are men of Georgian nationality. As regards the last part of the question, it would not appear that His Majesty's Government have any locus standi for interference in the matter.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (BUSINESS COMMITTEE).

Sir J. D. REES: 26.
asked the Prime Minister when the Report of the Geddes Committee will be presented?

Mr. A. T. DAVIES: 42.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes to issue in full the Report of the Departmental Committee on Expenditure presided over by the late Minister of Transport?

Captain BENN: (by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether it is proposed to publish at an early date the findings of the Geddes Committee?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): I have been asked to reply. The question of the publication of the Committee's Report will be a matter for the consideration and decision of the Cabinet.

Captain TERRELL: May I ask when the Cabinet will decide on this question?

Mr. YOUNG: I am afraid I am unable to inform the hon. and gallant Member.

Captain BENN: Will the Report be published before Parliament re-assembles?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does the Treasury look with a favourable eye on this Report?

Captain TERRELL: May I ask why the Cabinet cannot consider this matter at once? Why must it be delayed?

Captain BENN: Would the hon. Gentleman tell me whether the Report will be published?

Mr. YOUNG: It is impossible to give any further answer. The Report has not even been received by the Members of the Cabinet.

Captain TERRELL: May I ask for an answer to my question as to when the Cabinet will consider this matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to point out the simple fact that the Cabinet cannot consider the Report until it reaches them.

Mr. HOGGE: May I ask the Leader of the House if he can say when he, as Leader of the House, expects the Report to be considered?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a purely hypothetical question.

Mr. HOGGE: On that point of Order. Is it not the case that the Geddes Committee was set up during the last Session of Parliament, that we have been called together for a special Session of Parliament, and that, as financial business is the first business of a new Session, the House is entitled to know whether the Cabinet expect the Report shortly, and, if so, what steps will be taken?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is one of our Rules at Question Time that we do not admit hypothetical questions. This is one of that nature.

Mr. HOGGE: On that point of Order. I understand from your ruling that it is left to the Leader of the House to expect or not to expect a Report from a Financial Committee presided over by a Member of his Cabinet.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is dependent on a meeting which has not yet taken place.

Captain TERRELL: The question on the Paper asks if he will state when the Report of the Geddes Committee will be presented? We have not had an answer to that. We want to know when it will be presented.

Mr. HURD: Can the Leader of the House inform us how it comes about that such voluminous reports as to the contents of this Report have appeared in the Press, and whether those reports are accurate?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I have not seen the Report, which, as I have said, has not yet been presented to the Cabinet, I am unable to say how far any reports in the Press, which I have also not seen, are accurate.

Mr. HURD: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House as to the means by which these voluminous reports have appeared in the public Press, even before the Report itself has been presented to the Cabinet?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I imagine by means of more or less intelligent anticipation.

ECONOMIC SITUATION.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of setting up a Select Committee to consider the relative advantages or disadvantages of being a creditor or a debtor nation, and of inflating or deflating the currency, so that the minds of politicians and bankers may be rendered more clear as to the objects of financial legislation and administration?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think a Committee of the kind suggested would be a suitable body for such an economic investigation as the hon. and gallant Member desires.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman himself in favour of being a creditor nation with other people working for you and your own people unemployed, or a debtor nation with your people working for someone else?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not in favour of accepting either suggestion.

ASIATIC TURKEY.

Mr. O'CONNOR: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will instruct its representative at the forthcoming meeting of the Council of the League of Nations to support the Belgian proposal for the protection of the non-Turkish elements in Asiatic Turkey?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No details of the Belgian proposal referred to by the hon. Member have been received from the League of Nations. I am not, therefore, in a position to indicate the Government's attitude regarding it.

PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY.

Mr. C. WHITE: 37.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in the interests of economy, it has been decided that, as was the case before the War, the salary of only one Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury shall be borne upon the Votes?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. No decision has been taken upon this matter.

Mr. WHITE: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that on 23rd June he promised that the situation should be reviewed, and said that was an agreement which should not be perpetuated, and if that is so, could there be a more fitting opportunity, in the interest of economy, to take some action in this matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not recognise the quotation.

Mr. WHITE: I have it here.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member will send it to me, I will refresh my memory. What I think I said was that this was a matter which would come under discussion between the rising of the House and its meeting next year.

Mr. WHITE: Is it not a fact that the principal work of one of these gentlemen is in the country and not in this House, and should he be paid his £2,000 a year for that?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The work of both these gentlemen is both in the country and in this House, and is similar to that which has always been executed by their predecessors.

MOTOR-CAR ACCIDENT, ASHBY-DE- LA-ZOUCH.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 19.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a case last month at Ashby-de-la-Zouch county court where a motorist had caused serious injury to one of the public through negligent driving; and, if the local police did not institute proceedings in the matter, what action does he propose to take?

Mr. SHORTT: I learn on inquiry that the evidence in this case was not such as to justify criminal proceedings against
the driver of the motor-car. There is no action I could take in the matter.

INLAND REVENUE STAMPING, MIDDLESBROUGH.

Mr. THOMSON: 41.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the large amount of Inland Revenue stamping done in Middlesbrough, he can arrange for this work to be undertaken by a subordinate official at the Middlesbrough post office if the present stamp office should be closed at the end of the year, and in this way effect a considerable economy in present expenditure without seriously inconveniencing the general public?

Mr. YOUNG: The Board of Inland Revenue have recently explored, in consultation with the Post Office, the possibility of making an arrangement such as that suggested by the hon. Member. They have been unable so far to discover any practicable solution of the difficulties involved, but the matter will be further investigated.

HULL FLOODS (DISTRESS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether he can render any immediate assistance to the Lord Mayor and Corporation of Kingston-upon-Hull in their efforts to deal with the distress caused by the flooding of the City on the evening of 17th December?

Sir A. MOND: I should like to express the sympathy of the Government with the City in its misfortune. I have already sent officials of the Ministry to confer with the Lord Mayor and the Corporation, and every measure which is possible will be taken to render assistance in dealing with the situation.

ROYAL NAVY (CONSTRUCTION).

Captain BENN: (by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what decision has been arrived at in the matter of new capital ships; and what sums it is proposed to expend?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): No decision has yet been reached pending the final conclusion of the Washington
Conference, and I am not at present in a position to answer the second part of the question.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to wait for the reply of France in the matter of possible naval reductions before definite orders are given to our shipyards to suspend or alter work which is in hand?

Mr. AMERY: I have been asked to reply to this question. The capital ship contracts have been suspended. No further action is being taken pending the result of the Washington Conference.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have the Government considered the possibility of buying the "Mutso" from Japan and proposing to pay them at some subsequent time big interest on the sum involved?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member should give notice of that question.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: (by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the report that two new battleships are to be proceeded with as a result of the Washington Conference and that these ships are to be of considerably less tonnage than those for which contracts were recently entered into by the Admiralty; and will he further say assuming that it is, or may be, the intention of the Admiralty to construct two new battleships on the reduced basis of tonnage, whether in the altered circumstances it will now be possible to utilise for this purpose the slip at Devonport where the discharges from the dockyard are causing great local distress and unemployment?

Sir BURTON CHADWICK: Is the hon. Gentlemen aware that the same claim can be put forward very much more strongly for the Port of Barrow-in-Furness?

Mr. AMERY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I am afraid it would not be practicable to construct one of the suggested new ships at Devon-port.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether the ships were not originally sent to the Clyde because of
the industrial and political unrest in Glasgow, which it was hoped to allay by building them there, and does not that still apply?

Mr. AMERY: No. They were sent to the firm which offered the lowest tender.

Mr. TAYLOR: Were they not sent to the Clyde because of the splendid work which is done there in building ships better and cheaper?

Captain BENN: Is it proposed to compensate the shipbuilders for the two ships which have been abandoned, and then to enter into two new contracts because two new ships are required?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must not go into a question of propaganda.

GREATER LONDON GOVERNMENT.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: asked the Minister of Health whether he can make any statement which will reassure the minds of ratepayers in the Home Counties that undue encouragement is not being given to the London County Council to annex a large area of the surrounding districts for the purpose of forming a still Greater London?

Sir A. MOND: The local government of Greater London is at present the subject of an Inquiry by a Royal Commission, and I cannot make any statement in anticipation of their recommendations. The Outer London authorities will have ample opportunity of presenting their case to the Commission, which I have no doubt they will do with their usual energy and ability.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the Leader of the House whether any information can be given as to the further course of business to-day and as to the duration of the sitting of this House?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman and the House are aware that, when we adjourned on Friday, the Government anticipated that we should be in full possession of the result of the discussion in Dublin by the time we met to-day, but it seems now possible at least, if not actually probable, that those dis-
cussions will not conclude until Christmas Eve. We do not think that it would be desirable that we should keep the House in session until that result is arrived at. We propose, therefore, that Parliament should be prorogued to-day by the King in Council. It will be prorogued until Tuesday, 31st January, but if it becomes necessary we can, of course, summon Parliament for an earlier date than that for which it stands prorogued.

Mr. HOGGE: Does that mean that Parliament can be assembled in six days?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In six days.

Mr. HOGGE: Apart from that, the decision of the Government is to prorogue until 31st January. They will not wait to prorogue until after Christmas. I wish to ask whether it would not be the same if we adjourned until after Christmas, so that, at any rate, this Parliament, which has a very large share in the hopes for the success of this Conference, should be enabled to meet and discuss any events which may eventuate this week. What I am thinking of is that we understood from the Government that Dail Eireann might come to a decision to-day. Apparently it is going to take something like a week to come to a decision, and that decision may be favourable or unfavourable to the settlement. Similarly, those of us who are not in the inner ring read this morning that those in the Northern Parliament in Ulster are apparently making some objection to the Boundaries Commission. All these things may have some possible result on the settlement. Does not the Leader of the House feel that the mother Parliament, the governing Parliament, ought to be in a position, if necessary, to be called at once to discuss anything that might arise, and would it not be better, perhaps, if my right hon. Friend adjourns the House until after Christmas and until Dail Eireann has come to a decision? We could then be called together when that decision had been reached, and, if necesary, then prorogue. I think that that would be more consonant with the procedure and dignity of this House.

Mr. GWYNNE: May I remind the Leader of the House that as late as Friday last he said he thought it would be undesirable to prorogue until the
decision of the Dail was known? What has caused him to alter his position?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I stated, I anticipated a decision the next day by the representatives of Southern Ireland then gathered in Dublin. I do not think it is very consonant with our dignity that we should go on adjourning from day to day, waiting for a decision from the body across the channel. What that decision may be I have no greater means of knowing than any hon. Member of this House, nor have I any further information as to what is proceeding elsewhere. All I can say is that I think the most convenient course for the House is that we should now prorogue and not meet again before 31st January, unless it is necessary. Of course, that makes no difference to the convenience of those who do not propose to appear on the date to which the House is adjourned, but it makes a good deal of difference to officers of the House and some others who must attend if the House merely adjourns instead of being prorogued. On the other hand, if it should become necessary to meet before 31st January, Parliament can be summoned within six days of a Proclamation being issued. I think that that meets all that is necessary.

CHRISTIAN POPULATION IN ASIA MINOR.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: I beg to move,
That this House deeply sympathises with the sufferings of the Christian population in Asia Minor, and urges the Government to take every possible means to assist them.
I move this Motion in the hope of getting from the Government before the Session ends some statement as to the probable position in Armenia. Perhaps the House will allow me to remind them how the present position has arisen. In the course of the War the Turkish Government made an appeal to the Armenian nation to assist them, and promised them autonomy if they would do so. The Armenian nation declined to do so, because they felt themselves bound to the Allies. It was very largely in consequence of the refusal of the Armenians that the horrifying massacres took place in 1915 by the orders of Tallat Pasha and his accomplices. No such crime of a national character has ever been committed as the crime then committed. Hundreds of thousands, at least, were slaughtered under conditions of the greatest possible atrocity, to the accompaniment of every conceivable torture. The lowest estimate I have ever seen puts the total at 600,000, and there are many estimates much higher than that. In the course of the War we gave more than once the most absolute pledges that in the Peace one of the terms Armenia would receive would he her independence. It fell to me, speaking for the Government on more than one occasion in this House, to give those pledges, but they were given much more formally and precisely by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 5th January, 1918, when, to the Trade Union Congress, he stated the terms of peace which could be offered. We have had it from the Prime Minister in this House that that statement was made with a view to induce Turkey to make peace, if possible. It was therefore regarded as the very minimum of what the Allies intended to ask for. The Prime Minister said, on the date I have mentioned:
Arabia, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine are, in our judgment, entitled to a recognition of their separate national conditions…It would be impossible to restore to their former sovereignty the territories to which I have already referred.
Therefore there was an absolute statement that the policy of the Government, on which the Armenians were entitled to rely, as they did rely, was that they should receive their independence. In addition to that, our Ally, the French Government, induced the Armenians to enter the Allied Forces, and some battalions at any rate of Armenians were enlisted by the French on the distinct understanding—so the Armenians assert—that they should receive independence and autonomy at the end of the War. I do not believe that any Minister of the Crown would deny—I should be very much surprised if they did so—that the Armenians were led to believe that they would receive independence and autonomy, and that in consequence of these undertakings they did assist us, that they thus increased the dangers which they ran with the Turks, and that their present sufferings are in part due to what they did then. When it came to the Armistice the matter was not forgotten. I do not make any criticism, for I was a Member of the Government at the time. Looking back on it, I regret now that more stringent provisions were not put into the Armistice. Still, some provisions were put in, and we thought at the time that they would be sufficient to enable us to interfere on behalf of the Armenians if they were threatened with danger.
4.0 P.M.
Since that time very grave delay has taken place. If peace had been made with Turkey in the first six months after the Armistice, I have no doubt at all that she would have accepted almost any terms we had chosen to offer. Unfortunately, that was not done. I always understood that the reason the Government thought it impossible to do so was that they were awaiting the decision of the United States as to whether they would or would not accept a mandate for Armenia. With the greatest respect to the Government, that really is not any excuse at all. It was no reason whatever for waiting to make terms with Turkey, or for stating what portion of her territory she was to lose, that we had to settle with some outside party exactly what was to be done with those territories. As a matter of fact, as everyone knows, neither in that case nor in any other case, was anything put into the Treaties that were signed except that the territories in question should be at the disposition of the
principal Allied Powers. No statement was made as to the final dealing with them. It was reserved entirely for the Supreme Council to settle afterwards. I cannot help feeling that that delay has been very disastrous to the Armenian race. Then followed some very regrettable incidents in which the Supreme Council tried to put on to the Council of the League of Nations their responsibility in the matter, and the Council of the League was forced to point out that unless they were given troops and money it was impossible for them to undertake the responsibility which was sought to be placed upon them. There followed the removal of the troops from Batum which may have been necessary financially, but which was certainly absolutely disastrous to the Armenians. It effectually prevented any assistance reaching them from that side, which was the only practicable way by which we could approach the Republic of Erivan which was then being set up. I will not go into what I am afraid must have seemed to the Armenians as the almost derisive attempts to assist. Equipment of the most unsuitable kind was sent to them very late, without anyone to instruct them how to use it—at least, so I am informed—and under circumstances which precluded them making any use of it whatever. There followed the attacks by the Turks on the one side and the Bolsheviks on the other in 1920, and the final extinction of the Erivan Republic for all practical purposes.
When at Geneva the other day, I saw a young officer, well known to some of my hon. Friends, who had just returned from Armenia. He gave the most appalling account of the sufferings that the unhappy there are enduring not only by actual and direct oppression, but by the starvation which is the inevitable result of all that the country has gone through and all the circumstances. Shortly before that time we spent £50,000,000 and gave £50,000,000 worth of stores to support General Denekin. If we had given one-tenth of that amount towards taking proper measures to save the Armenian nation I am quite satisfied that it would have been done, but unfortunately we did not take that step. We are now face to face with a fresh disaster to these people and to the other Christians who live down in the South. All that I have been speaking of happened about Erivan and the northern centre.
Cilicia down in the South had so far been unmolested. It was handed over to our French Allies under what was hoped to be arrangements for peace, though peace has never followed yet. I believe that in the first instance they did do something towards taking responsibility for the protection of the Christian population. They formed a gendarmerie, they established something in the nature of a Government under French protection in Adana and other places. Information is very difficult to obtain, but we are told that they have made an arrangement with Mustapha Kemal which involves the complete abandonment of the Christian population in that part. The House will perceive that the lot of this population will be far worse now than if the French had never gone there. All those who are known to have assisted the Europeans will, of course, be singled out for special ill-treatment when the Turks resume their domination. We do not know what is actually going on—at least I do not—in internal Cilicia, but we do know that there is an exodus of thousands of unhappy people absolutely destitute pouring down to Alexandretta and the sea coast to avoid what they regard as inevitable destruction, and we do know that the most minatory notices are appearing in the Turkish newspapers as to what they may expect if they remain.
I suppose that the Government will say that they have done all that they can and ask us to suggest. something more that can be done. It is not easy for people outside without official knowledge to know what is practicable at any given moment in international affairs, and, indeed, I am not sure if it would be useful to put forward such suggestions as I have to make, since I do not know whether they will be acceptable or not. But we are not without means of negotiation in this matter, and I trust that those means of negotiation will be effectually used. The position is intensely serious. I see my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees), who suspects me of what he regards as the greatest crime that anyone can commit, namely, of taking a humanitarian interest in this matter. It is not only humanitarian; it is also a matter of high policy. It is useless for us to deny that our reputation in the Middle East has suffered very severely. A series of incidents have
taken place, all of them unfortunate, and some of them which can be described by only a stronger adjective. We have not covered ourselves with glory in Persia, we have deserted the Assyrians, we have not kept faith with the Arabs, the Jews are exceedingly doubtful as to the treatment that we are giving them in Palestine, and I am not sure that the position is not made worse by the fact that we have already spent immense sums in Iraq, where, at any rate, our enemies say that we were led to do so by the hope of pecuniary reward in the way of oil.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The Prime Minister said so.

Lord R. CECIL: It is quite unnecessary for me to remind the Government how enormously important is the reputation of this country on, if I may so put it to satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham, business grounds. The whole British Empire is built on good faith. It is built on the knowledge that other nations have had that up till now when we said a thing we would carry out our promise even at great inconvenience to ourselves. I trust that the Government may be able to reassure the House, and I venture to tell them that they would have been in no parliamentary danger whatever in a matter of this kind. I am certain that they will not be actuated merely by that, but that they will consider the immense responsibility that rests upon them, not only to this House and in reference to the present body of the electors, but because they are entrusted with the control and government of the British Empire, and what they do will affect not only us but also those who come after.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Motion.
I do not know whether I understood the Leader of the House to challenge the suggestion that pledges were given to the Armenians during the War. I hope I did not rightly understand that, because it has never yet been denied; on the contrary, those pledges and promises have been reasserted over and over again, notably by the Foreign Secretary in the House of Lords, and I say that, much as I feel the sufferings of these people, who, after all, are aliens to us, I feel even
more the question of British honour, and I very earnestly ask this House to consider whether anybody in any future emergency is going to trust to British pledges and British promises if afterwards there is a danger of them being told that it was an expression of intention and was not a pledge. I venture to say that they were very express pledges. Moreover, they were acted upon. The Armenians provided a large number of volunteers and suffered very greatly on the strength of those pledges. They were not only extended to the Armenians but to other races, and the other Christian races in the East also suffered very severely because of their known sympathy with the Entente Powers.
When this matter was being discussed the other day, I asserted that a large number of those in Cilicia, who were now in terror of being exterminated by the returning Turks, were sent back there by the action of the British and French Governments. I have evidence that the French Government induced 200,000 Christian and other refugees to return to Cilicia. It is not, however, so much a question of what the French Government did as what the British Government did, and I will read to the House part of a letter, dated 1st March, 1920, sent to me from the War Office. It is not marked personal, private, or confidential, and there is nothing about it to prevent my making this use of it. In the course of the letter, it is said:
It may help you if I explain the circumstances.
I had written to ask whether the people who had lost their lives about that time were among those who had been sent back there by the British Government—
Towards the end of last September, Field-Marshal Lord Allenby reported that on our withdrawal from Cilicia and Syria it was feared that a large number of Armenians, at Urfa, Marash, Aintab, Aleppo, etc., might start streaming south in the wake of our troops, when it would be impossible to look after them. He suggested that by agreement with the French these Armenians, particularly those whom we were protecting at Aleppo (to whom I presume you chiefly refer) should be repatriated to Cilicia, a country which would be under French protection, and in which Armenians already formed a large proportion of the population.
Therefore there is perfectly clear evidence that these people were repatriated by us and the French back to Cilicia from
Aleppo, a place of less safety, and were told that they would there have French protection. The French undoubtedly promised us, when they went into Cilicia, that they would give that protection. The question is, what is to be done by the French Government in carrying out that promise? It is not only a question of the French Government. Quite apart from what the French Government may choose to do, our promises stand, and our promises create an obligation upon us. I am not asking this country to go crusading about the world taking up this and that case of suffering and trying to put it right, but we have certain duties, and I am confining my claim entirely to the duties which we have in regard to this suffering population. Again and again we have intervened in this Matter. The whole course of what we have done ever since the Crimean War constitutes a great obligation, and, more than that, the pledges which we gave in the last War, confirmed by the letter which I have just read and a thousand other pieces of evidence which I could give, fetter upon us and fix upon us an absolute obligation as great as the obligation upon a man to pay his debts. If we do not keep these pledges, who is going to trust us in any future emergency?

Sir J. D. REES: There are two assumptions underlying the speech of my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), neither of which I venture to think is justified. The first is that Turks massacre Armenians and that Armenians do not massacre Turks. I do not know why, when a Turk is killed, it is regarded almost like the killing of beef or mutton, but when an Armenian is killed he is massacred like a martyr.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Thousands of Armenians have been killed for every Turk.

Sir J. D. REES: I do not say it happens with equal frequency, because, of course, there are more Turks than there are Armenians, but given equal opportunities there is very little to choose between one side and the other. It is the assumption that there are not two sides to this question which is so exasperating and so provoking to our Mohammedan fellow subjects in India, and so dangerous from the point of view of their loyalty to the British connection. The
other assumption underlying the speech of my Noble Friend is—and, of course, the Seconder of the Motion took it as a matter of course—that our French Allies are not as humane as ourselves.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I must repudiate that entirely. I said nothing of the sort. I said our pledges remained, whatever the action of the French might be.

Sir J. D. REES: Why, then, when the French leave Cilicia, is there all this protest? Why does my Noble Friend point out that the Armenians, all of whom ex hypothesi have been slain, are going down in thousands to Alexandretta and the coast? Why should they urge upon the House to force our humane French Allies to take that care of the Armenians which we would take had we been in charge, and which we are also told we have so lamentably failed to take? My Noble Friend has just said that our reputation in the Middle East has somewhat suffered. I agree, and I would add that our reputation in the Far East has suffered far more, and that for the very reasons which I am endeavouring to state in a very few words—knowing that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is going to speak. The trouble in Malabar is entirely local, and it is due to the Caliphate agitation, which in turn is due to the opinion existing in India—which I confess I share—that there is in England a feeling of preference for the Armenian over the Turk. That feeling, I think, exists on all sides, and, indeed, it is so much a matter of course that it requires some little courage to get up in the House and point out that there is no justification whatever for it. The men who inhabit Asia Minor and the Balkans are all built in very much the same mould and it matters very little, except to those who are under the glamour of Oriental Christianity, which creed they profess. They are good men or bad men in every case according to their dispositions and their opportunities. My Noble Friend says that the Armenians have a special claim upon us because they helped us in the War. I do not wish to disparage the help of any people, but what help have they given? Did they help us, no; they helped themselves to millions of our money and they have been maintained ever since in tens of thousands, and I believe to this very day they are living upon the British taxpayer. I
deprecate in this ad hoc Parliament—to use the jargon of a past Parliamentary day—any question of this sort whatever arising. It is quite impossible for me, as one who has lived among Mohammedans for a great part of my life, who has friends among them, and who am, I hope and believe, trusted by them, to sit here and hear these speeches delivered from a purely Armenian party point of view. I should like to ask what tax would my hon. Friends impose upon the suffering British taxpayer in order to succour the Armenians? Are they prepared to recommend the levying of a tax or the spending of a sum of money which we have not got upon succouring the Armenians? Is there to be no end to the insanity of our benefactions? There is no reason in suggesting, even if the Armenians do suffer, that the British taxpayer is to put his hand in his pocket to save them from those sufferings. The fact may be stated that at the present moment the British taxpayer has got a good deal more upon his back than he can carry, and also that the people in India, those Mohammedans who were the conservative, loyal pro-English portion of the population, are suffering under a sense of injustice because in the Treaty of Sèvres and in all the discussions upon it, and in every matter that comes before this House, not only are they not treated as what they are, as people of the Book who revere the sacred figures of our religion only slightly less than we do ourselves, but they are treated as if they were heathens, whereas they regard other people as heathens. They are treated as if they were all cruel, and as if it were wrong for them to have any other people under their control. How hardly it would go with the British Empire if this theory were adopted.

Mr. O'CONNOR: It has not butchered Mohammedans.

Sir J. D. REES: My hon. Friend is never tired of lifting up his voice one day for Ireland—now no longer distressed Ireland—and another day for Armenia, still distressed and suffering Armenia. It has been suggested that His Highness the Aga Khan no longer represents the feeling of the Indian Mohammedans. I protest against that. The Aga Khan's is still the most powerful and the most
representative voice lifted up for the Mohammedans of India. Though he has been distant from India for a season he is on his way there at the present moment, and he is always in constant and immediate communication with India. He is one of the best possible authorities on this subject, and he has lately written upon it and I would add that the Armenians are so clever and so well supplied with money and so excellently organised that it is exceedingly difficult for anyone who speaks against them to obtain a hearing in this country or a place in the Press. I do, with all the energy of which I am capable, lift up my voice on behalf of the Turk and on behalf of his kinsman, the Sunni Mohammedan of India.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): If I rise to intervene, it is only because I do not wish to be thought discourteous by those who gave notice of this Motion, but they might otherwise think I was deliberately waiting with my eye on the clock for the time when all of us are to be sent into space. I find my views on this subject are not very well illustrated in the speeches which have been made on either side. I am not, I hope, lacking in sympathy with our Mohammedan fellow-subjects in India, either in what concerns their Government in the Indian Empire, or in their outlook on the world. On the other hand, I cannot think without something like horror and dismay of the abominable barbarities which have been practised in Armenia, and if I condemn Turkish rule in Armenia it is not because it is Mohammedan rule over Christian people, but because it is a barbarous and brutal rule, which would disgrace whatever Government in which it originated. I deprecate the tendency of my Noble Friend the Mover of the Motion to view his own country in such gloomy colours, and the tendency both of my Noble Friend and of the hon. Baronet the Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) to interpret as a pledge to some particular party who would have the right to call for its execution at any moment and in any circumstances, every statement of intention or of policy offered by a British Minister in either of the Houses of Parliament, or in speaking to a British audience. Take what was alluded to by my Noble Friend—the statament made by the British Government or by the Prime Minister as to the terms on which
at a given moment, when War was still in progress, we should have been ready to make peace with Turkey. In that statement the Prime Minister, among the conditions which he would exact from Turkey as the price of peace at that time, mentioned the freedom of Armenia or the autonomy of Armenia.

Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: To recognise the independence of Armenia.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not profess to be quoting the exact words. My Noble Friend speaks of that as a pledge to the Armenian people in respect of what they had incurred in the War.

Lord R. CECIL: There is another phrase in that same speech which secured Constantinople to the Turks, and that was publicly stated by the Prime Minister to be a pledge on which we could not go back. What was a pledge to the Turks should equally be a pledge to the Armenians.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I have not all the utterances of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister so close to my hand as the Noble Lord, who, think, studies them merely in order to repudiate or condemn. I do, however, deprecate the argument that any Minister who stands at this Box, or speaks in another place to his own people merely to expound the views and intentions of His Majesty's Government, cannot do so without being pledged thereby, and without giving the right to some party or people outside this country to claim that these are pledges binding on the Government upon which they have a right to insist.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: The Prime Minister in the House of Commons on the 29th April, 1920, said:
But I assure my hon. Friends that we cannot dissociate ourselves from the responsibility that is cast upon us by our pledges in respect of the Armenians."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1920; col. 1520, Vol. 128.]
Those are the words of the Prime Minister.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Member has taken up all the remaining time.

PROROGATION.

HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went, and having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER: (standing in the Clerk's place at the Table): I have to acquaint the House that this House has been to the House of Peers, at the desire of the Lords Commissioners appointed under the Great Seal to Prorogue the present Parliament, and that the Lord High Chancellor, being one of the High Commissioners, delivered His Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of His Majesty's Command, as followeth:
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
I have received with deep satisfaction the assurance of your approval of the Articles of the Irish Agreement and of your readiness to give effect to its provisions.
I pray that the blessing of almighty God may rest upon, your decisions.
Then a Commission for proroguing the Parliament was read in the House of Lords.
After which the LORD CHANCELLOR said:
MY LORDS AND MEMBERS,—By virtue of His Majesty's Commission, under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, and now read, we do, in His Majesty's Name and in obedience to his Commands, Prorogue, this Parliament to Tuesday, the thirty-first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two, to be then here holden; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Tuesday, the thirty-first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two.
End of the Fourth Session (opened, Wednesday, 14th December, 1921) of the Thirty-first Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in the twelfth year of the Reign of His Majesty King George the Fifth